Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romapada Swami (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus faithless (^speak) 12:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romapada Swami

Romapada Swami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

*Delete Subject is not notable. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus or swamis, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article does not state subject's notability and has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Did he do anything to be important?--eskimospy (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article lacks reliable references independent of the religious leader or his religious organization to show that he meets the applicable requirements for [[WPBIO|notability]. Edison (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment in General I dont think someone necessarily needs references from out of his religion, but he does need references that show he is particularly distinctive, and I do not understand what the appropriate criteria are. We need some help here, and I call on those who understand the movement better to inform us.03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Do not snow Membership in the governing body of Hare Krishna seems to be a plausible notability claim. Membership in the College of Cardinals would be. The situation here is somewhat borderline because Hare Krishna is a somewhat smaller religion, although still substantially greater than an isolated congregation. The individual does need a minimum of two independent sources which may possibly include religious sources. I would recommend not WP:SNOWing and giving the authors an opportunity to obtain sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article doesn't make clear whether he is actually on the ISKON Governing Body Commission. Would it be possible to clarify this? I believe as said above that ISKON membershhip is a plausible notability claim; however, the article uses the term "zonal secretary" and not everyone with a regional title, or every priest or swami, would be notable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reading the first AFD, it looks like there wasn't much of a consensus there, and there doesn't seem to be one here. I'll be optimistic and throw this out yet again, hoping enough people who are knowledgeable about the subject will present a good argument one way or the other that we'll get clean closure on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Romapada Swami is on the Governing Body Commission, a link to there website at [1] displays his name. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Shirahadasha's discussion on GBC members notabilty. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note for Administrator - nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well, naturally, I vote to include him: I feel that there are so many less notable topics (such as Internet phenomena) which are kept without question. David G Brault (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, please have pity on whatever admin comes along and closes this. Make it clear in your comments whether you think this article should be kept or deleted. Some of the comments above are so vague that if I were closing this, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell which way was being argued -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.